Om Prakash & Anr vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 31 August, 2016

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
submitted that the respondent no. 2 present in the Court has been
identified to be the complainant/first informant by his counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that in February 2004,
the petitioner no.1/accused no.1 offered the employment for the post
of clerk in Uttaranchal Govt. in lieu of Rs. 3.5 Lacs to the complainant
and his cousin brother namely, Navin. The complainant was handed
over a list of selected candidates in which his name was also

Crl.M.C. 1097/2016 Page 1 of 7
mentioned but when the complainant reported to the office of the
Administrative Officer, Regional Telecom Office, Dehradun, he
discovered that the said list was bogus. When the complainant tried to
approach the accused no.1 he was again shocked to see that the house
of the accused no.1 was locked. When the accused no.1 was traced,
the matter was referred to the Panchayat before which he confessed
his guilt and sought time to arrange the money but he failed to do so.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*